I have to strongly disagree with the potential downsides of table-based casino games that were expressed in the article "DeWeese: Add table games to Pa. slots" on Wednesday. The criticisms expressed don't hold up to even basic reasoning

The first contention is the assumption by Rep. Paul Clymer (R., Bucks) that table games would increase those on welfare, as poorer Pennsylvanians lose their money in attempting to "strike it rich." This argument doesn't make sense, given that we already have slots parlors. Table games tend to attract wealthier clients, and even if the poor did switch from slots to table games, they'd be playing games that have statistically lower expected losses. Replacing slots with table games would be better for the poor than having slots with no tables.

The second contention comes from the reporter: "The bad news? Experts say it takes about eight people to staff one table game round the clock, seven days a week." The bad news is that allowing table games will create jobs? That casinos will be so overburdened they'll need to ramp up hiring?

Looking at the so-called downsides, I say let's pass this bill as soon as possible so Pennsylvania can achieve the economic benefits long enjoyed by our neighbors.

Matt Crespi

Philadelphia